PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 14, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Ultrasonographic and cephalometric assessment of tongue thickness across angle’s classes of malocclusion in skeletal class I patients

View Full Paper
RARabia Çayır ArasGGGediz GedukOÇOrhan Çiçek

Key Points

  • To investigate tongue thickness variations across dental malocclusion classifications and compare assessment methods.
  • Included 90 skeletal Class I participants categorized by Angle's classification
  • Measured tongue thickness via ultrasonographic and cephalometric methods
  • Evaluated reliability using statistical analyses like ANOVA and t-tests
  • Significant tongue thickness differences across malocclusion groups (Class III > I > II; p < 0.001)
  • Ultrasonographic measurements showed higher precision compared to cephalometric measurements
  • Males exhibited greater tongue thickness than females (p < 0.05)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between tongue thickness and dental malocclusions, to compare the diagnostic reliability of ultrasonography (USG) and lateral cephalometry in tongue assessment, and explore potential sex-related differences in tongue morphology. Ninety participants (54 females, 36 males; mean age: 16.01 ± 2.26 years) with a skeletal Class I relationship were included and divided into three groups according to Angle’s classification: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Tongue thickness measurements were obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs as cephalometric tongue thickness (CTT) and from USG as ultrasonographic tongue thickness (UTT). Intraobserver reliability was evaluated using Dahlberg’s formula and Cronbach’s alpha. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, independent-samples t -tests, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Pearson correlation analysis. Statistical significance was set at p Class I > Class II; p < 0.001). For UTT, mean ± SD values were 35.97 ± 2.6 mm for Class I, 35.18 ± 2.2 mm for Class II, and 40.81 ± 1.9 mm for Class III. For CTT, mean ± SD values were 34.97 ± 4.6 mm for Class I, 31.63 ± 3.1 mm for Class II, and 39.06 ± 3.4 mm for Class III. UTT showed higher precision and lower variability than CTT (mean absolute difference: 0.32 mm vs. 0.75 mm; p = 0.002). Males had significantly greater tongue thickness than females ( p < 0.05). Correlations between CTT and UTT within malocclusion groups were positive but not significant. Tongue thickness is significantly associated with sagittal dental malocclusion. USG provides a reliable and reproducible method for tongue assessment, demonstrating superior precision compared with lateral cephalometry. Incorporating ultrasonographic evaluation of the tongue into orthodontic planning may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and improve the predictability of clinical outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aras et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698fd276306598e8538de9a4https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40135-z
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Computed tomographic measurement of tongue volume relative to its surrounding space1982 · 17 citations
  2. 2Etiology of malocclusion and dominant orthodontic problems in mixed dentition: A cross-sectional study in a group of Thai children aged 8–9 years2019 · 41 citations
  3. 3Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience2013 · 8,034 citations
  4. 4Advanced Ultrasonography Imaging2021 · 1 citations
  5. 5A cephalometric study of tongue position1968 · 44 citations